Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'Administration de ne pas enqu¨ºter davantage sur les all¨¦gations de M. Lutfiev ¨¤ l'encontre de son ancien chef de cabinet ¨¦tait justifi¨¦e, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que ce dernier n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.

En outre, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision du Tribunal disciplinaire de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA annulant la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise ¨¤ tort. Le Tribunal du contentieux a appliqu¨¦ une m¨¦thodologie erron¨¦e ¨¤ l'examen des motifs de la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev et n'a pas proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ ce que l'on appelle l'examen...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDN avait commis une erreur en concluant que les actes du fonctionnaire ne constituaient pas une faute professionnelle. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli, ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des preuves, que le fonctionnaire avait refus¨¦ de coop¨¦rer ¨¤ une enqu¨ºte men¨¦e par le Bureau des services de contr?le interne (BSCI) concernant un autre fonctionnaire faisant l'objet d'une enqu¨ºte pour avoir fourni de fausses informations sur son lieu de r¨¦sidence.

Il a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait d¨¦lib¨¦r¨¦ment dissimul¨¦ des informations et fourni des r¨¦ponses g¨¦n¨¦riques, vagues et trompeuses...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de maintenir la note de performance ? C ¨C R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? attribu¨¦e au fonctionnaire constituait une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours ayant un effet juridique direct sur son emploi. Elle a fait remarquer que, dans le cadre juridique applicable, une note ? R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? justifie la d¨¦cision de ne pas accorder d'augmentation salariale et que celle-ci doit ¨ºtre suspendue dans l'attente des r¨¦sultats d'un PIP. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ que ces cons¨¦quences constituaient des effets d¨¦favorables r¨¦sultant directement...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la contestation par l'ancienne fonctionnaire de la d¨¦cision de l'ALWP et de la d¨¦cision de New York n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car elle n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ la direction d'¨¦valuer ces d¨¦cisions.

En ce qui concerne la mesure disciplinaire, le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵI a d¨¦termin¨¦ que ses d¨¦clarations et ses publications sur les r¨¦seaux sociaux constituaient des activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures non autoris¨¦es ¨¦quivalant ¨¤ une faute professionnelle. Il a not¨¦ qu'elle avait publi¨¦ des d¨¦clarations, des articles et donn¨¦ des interviews sans autorisation pr¨¦alable, malgr¨¦ des avertissements r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦s. Il a estim¨¦ que...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae car il n'avait pas tent¨¦ de r¨¦soudre le litige par l'interm¨¦diaire du Bureau du M¨¦diateur des Fonds et programmes des Nations Unies, comme l'exigeait explicitement l'accord de r¨¨glement qu'il avait express¨¦ment accept¨¦. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a estim¨¦ que les termes de l'accord de r¨¨glement restaient contraignants et ex¨¦cutoires pour les parties, et que le TNDU n'avait commis aucune erreur en obligeant les parties ¨¤ respecter ces termes.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵO a en outre estim¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s legal framework.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also determined that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four-pronged...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision to maintain the staff member¡¯s performance rating ¡°C ¨C Partially meets expectations¡± constituted a reviewable administrative decision that had direct legal effect on his employment. It observed that under the applicable legal framework, a rating of ¡°Partially meets expectations¡± justifies a determination that a salary increment is not warranted, and that the increment shall be withheld pending the outcome of a PIP. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the...